Q. Sir, yesterday you testified about a time in early November 2013 when you and Mr. Zullo and Mr. Montgomery were in Mr. Montgomery's office and searched for some version of Judge Snow's name in the database. Do you recall that testimony?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. So I'd like to go back to that to clarify one point. You testified at one point that you weren't sure, I believe, whether it was Mr. Montgomery or Mr. Zullo that actually typed the search into Google to find out what was the name of the judge, is that correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And we played a portion of your deposition where you had said that it was Mike Zullo's idea to do that.

Is that -- do you recall that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And do you stand by that testimony today that it was actually Mike Zullo's idea to look for the name of the judge? [3714]

A. No.

Q. You don't stand by that testimony?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you recall testifying several times at your deposition that it was Mr. Zullo's idea to find out what the name of the judge was?

A. I do.

Q. And you didn't object to that; you told me at your deposition that you didn't object to that search, correct?

A. I did not object to that search, no.

Q. But today you're telling me that you're changing your testimony about whose idea it was to look for the judge's name?

A. No. What I'm saying is, is that it was Mike Zullo's idea, but Dennis Montgomery is actually the one who Googled the name. That's what I said in my deposition, and that's what I'm standing by.

Q. Okay. And you did say also at your deposition that you didn't recall whether Dennis Montgomery typed into his computer, into a Google search engine or something of that sort, versus Mike Zullo typing on his phone into a Google search engine. Do you recall that at your deposition?

A. Yes, I do. I originally thought that it was Mike. After I further thought about it, it was actually Dennis Montgomery.

THE WITNESS: Ma'am, I'd like to add one thing. Some of the names were also derived from some of the e-mails of information Dennis Montgomery gave us. So some of the names on this list were actually names within the e-mails he provided that came from multiple sources.

MS. MORIN: Fair enough. Thank you for that clarification.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

BY MS. MORIN: Q. And if you turn to the second page of your list, Judge Murray Snow appeared on that second page. You see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you put Judge Snow's name on this list because Dennis Montgomery mentioned Judge Snow's name frequently, is that correct?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Now, during the time you were in Seattle in late 2013, you communicated with Chief Deputy Sheridan regularly, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Approximately once a week?

A. It was probably a little bit more than that, but yeah, at least once a week. [3718]

Q. And you communicated with Sheriff Arpaio as well, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. About twice a month with Sheriff Arpaio?

A. I communicated with Sheriff Arpaio less than I did with Chief Sheridan.

Q. Was it --

A. I couldn't -- I couldn't put a figure on it. It was less than Chief Deputy Sheridan.

Q. So less than once a week?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall testifying at your deposition that you probably talked with Sheriff Arpaio about twice a month?

A. That would probably be about accurate.

Q. Okay. And you continued to talk with and keep Chief Deputy Sheridan updated in 2014 as well, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Same with Sheriff Arpaio?

A. Not so much Sheriff Arpaio. I mostly talked to Chief Deputy Sheridan until about middle of February, and then -- or, I'm sorry, before the second week of January, and then everything went through Travis Anglin.

Q. And you kept Sergeant Anglin updated as well, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And in late 2013 or early 2014, you participated in a meeting about the Seattle investigation by speakerphone with [3719] several people in Phoenix, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that meeting was called to discuss the information that Dennis Montgomery was providing you in that investigation, right?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Mike Zullo was on the call as well?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. Was the sheriff on the line?

A. I can't be certain who was on the line; I was actually in Seattle at the time. And I knew that there was a bunch of people on the phone in Phoenix. I couldn't tell you exactly who was on the phone or who wasn't on the phone.

Q. Could you tell us if Chief Deputy Sheridan was online?

A. I believe he was, but I can't say for certain.

Q. And Mr. Montgomery did not participate, correct?

A. No, he did not.

Q. And you gave your update about what was going on in Seattle and about Mr. Montgomery's information, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Turn to Exhibit 2085, please, sir. Do you recognize this as a document that you created?

Q. Okay. And I mentioned [Exhibits 2907 through 2915]. If you could take a look at those, please, sir, and just confirm that those are also copies of spending memoranda that you wrote, similar to 2906.

A. Yes. I'd just like to add on 2915 there is no handwritten receipt, and there would have had to have been a handwritten receipt attached with that. I don't know where that went, but there would have had to been one produced to turn in the memo in the first place.

Q. Okay. Thank you, sir.

A. You're welcome.

MS. MORIN: Your Honor, we move for the admission of Exhibit 2906 through 2915.

And do you see there behind the cover sheet that says document number 6, quote, list 2, a document that you authored?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is your checklist that you created in relation to items that Mr. Montgomery was promising to provide, correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Items that you wanted to potentially follow up with with Mr. Montgomery, correct?

A. I believe these were the things that were mentioned in the free talk agreement that he had to provide to us so we could turn it over to the AG's office to satisfy the free talk agreement that was on December 6th of 2013.

Q. And Mr. Montgomery never produced any of those items, correct? [3727]

A. No.

MS. MORIN: Your Honor, we move for the admission of Exhibit 2922.

MR. POPOLIZIO: No objection, Your Honor.

MR. WALKER: No objection.

THE COURT: Exhibit 2922 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 2922 is admitted into evidence.)

BY MS. MORIN: Q. Now, Mr. Montgomery did produce a number of documents in the course of the investigation, correct?

Q. You see that this is an e-mail that you sent to Larry [3736] Klayman, cc'ing Michael Zullo, Dennis Montgomery using his David Webb e-mail address, Dina James, as well as e-mail chains that follow the first e-mail, those e-mail chains coming from Larry Klayman and Dennis Montgomery?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And in the e-mail that you wrote to Mr. Klayman, you expressed your unhappiness with Mr. Montgomery's failure to complete his work, correct?

A. Yes, I do.

MS. MORIN: Your Honor, we move for the admission of Exhibit 2938.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, relevance, foundation, 805.

THE COURT: Overruled. Exhibit 2938 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 2938 is admitted into evidence.)

BY MS. MORIN: Q. So in November you went into some detail in your e-mail to Mr. Klayman about everything that -- or about things that the Sheriff's Office had done for Mr. Montgomery, correct?

Q. Okay. And if you look at the November 3rd, 10:25 e-mail -- sorry. The November 3rd, 8:16 a.m. e-mail from yourself to "Gentlemen" that begins in the middle of the first page. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And in the third paragraph of that e-mail it begins: "From day one." Do you see that paragraph?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And do you see where you say: "... we opened the door to a Federal Judge to give you as much protection as possible. Mike and I went to the Administration several times and asked for extensions to continue this investigation because we believed your 'STORY' and the information you provided." Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. You wrote those words, right?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You can put that aside. Thank you. Can you turn to Exhibit 2937, please.

Q. And you forwarded an e-mail that you sent only to Mr. Klayman below that, as well an e-mail from Mr. Klayman. Do you see that?

A. Correct.

Q. And looking at the bottom of the first page going onto the second page, that's another e-mail that you sent to Larry Klayman, correct?

A. Yes, it is.

MS. MORIN: Your Honor, we move for the admission of Exhibit 2937.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, relevance, foundation, hearsay, 805.

THE COURT: Overruled. Exhibit 2937 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 2937 is admitted into evidence.)

MS. MORIN: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MS. MORIN: Q. So looking at the e-mail that you sent on -- starting on the bottom of the first page and primarily on the second page, do you see that you refer to Mr. Klayman's having called Sheriff Arpaio about the work with Mr. Montgomery?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you also informed Mr. Klayman that Mike Zullo was not happy with the way Mr. Klayman threatened him, threatened Mike Zullo, is that correct?

* * * BY MS. MORIN: Q. Detective Mackiewicz, you wrote to Mr. Zullo on November 14th, 2014: "This is going to burn Klayman and Elmer's house down to the ground." Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you forwarded an e-mail along with that message, and the e-mail was from Thomas Drake referring to a summary provided by Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that summary was a document that, according to Thomas Drake, found that Mr. Montgomery is a complete and total fraud, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And when you wrote "This is going to burn Klayman and Elmer's house down to the ground," you meant that that report destroyed any credibility of Montgomery and Klayman regarding the investigation, right?

Sir, I'm going to shift gears to another line of questioning for you at this moment. You're aware that Mary Ann McKessy has made certain allegations against you, allegations that gave rise to an MCSO investigation, correct?

THE WITNESS: You know what, ma'am? I was read a notice of investigation I received ordering me not to discuss anything about the investigation. I've been informed that failure to comply with this order will result in disciplinary action. Therefore, at the instruction of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer any question.

MS. MORIN: Your Honor, I'd ask for an order that Mr. -- or, sorry, that Detective Mackiewicz answer the question, which I believe in this case was just a yes or no question.

THE COURT: Ms. Nash, on what authority do you say binds this Court from entering such an order?

MS. MIJARES NASH: Your Honor, I would --

THE COURT: You need to get a microphone. Not that one. Thank you.

MS. MIJARES NASH: Your Honor, the policy of the Sheriff's Office, specifically GH-2, does require anybody who is under a notice of investigation not to discuss the subject of that investigation or anything about the investigation, with limited exception. And any violation of that order would subject any subject, including Detective Mackiewicz, to any kind of disciplinary action, including termination.

THE COURT: All right. Detective Mackiewicz, I'm going to direct you to [3746] answer the question. And if the Sheriff's Office attempts to discipline you because you've answered the question, you may raise the matter with the Court.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MS. MORIN: Q. So the question that I asked was: You're aware that Mary Ann McKessy has made certain allegations against you, giving rise to an investigation?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And at some point Sheriff Arpaio wanted to find out whether Mary Ann McKessy was, quote-unquote, the snitch, is that right?

MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation, relevance.

THE COURT: Do you want to lay some foundation?

MS. MORIN: Sure.

BY MS. MORIN: Q. Sir, you had an interview, or -- you're aware that there was a telephone interview between yourself and Detective Tennyson on August 5th, 2015, right?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you're familiar with the fact that there's a transcript of that interview?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you've seen that transcript, right?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And do you recall telling Mr. Tennyson about a comment that [3747] Sheriff Arpaio made regarding finding out who the snitch was?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. So did Sheriff Arpaio, in fact, want to find out who was the snitch, and whether Mary Ann McKessy was the snitch?

MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: I think you're going to have to lay foundation as to how he knows that.

MS. MORIN: Sure, Your Honor.

BY MS. MORIN: Q. Those were words that you told -- you relayed -- or that was information that you relayed to Sergeant Tennyson, correct?

A. I can't tell you what the sheriff did want or didn't want; I wasn't privy to that conversation in the first place.

Q. Right. But returning to your August -- August 5th, 2015 telephone call with Detective Tennyson, you did relay to Detective Tennyson that the sheriff wanted to find out who the snitch was, right? That's something you said?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And you had a basis for saying that, right?

A. I don't understand your question.

Q. You had a basis for making that comment to Detective Tennyson when you were speaking with Detective Tennyson, right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. What was your basis?

A. The Sheriff's Office wondered who was leaking information [3748] to the media. That's what our -- that's -- that's what our concern was. There was information being produced in the media that shouldn't have been produced in the media because it was affecting our investigation.

The whole reason why you keep a criminal investigation secret is so it won't affect the criminal investigation in the long run. That's exactly what was happening.

Q. And when you say information was leaking to the media, you were -- you are referring to information relating to the Seattle investigation involving Mr. Montgomery, right?

A. Just in general.

Q. What do you mean, "just in general"?

A. Just --

Q. Withdraw that. When you said to Detective Tennyson the sheriff wanted to find out who the snitch was, you were referring to who a snitch was with respect to leaking information about the Seattle investigation to the press, correct?

A. Correct.

* * *

BY MS. MORIN: Q. So a moment ago when you responded to my questions about [3749] this, you said that the MCSO was concerned about finding out who was leaking information to the press, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Who did you talk to about this issue of the MCSO and the sheriff wanted to find out who the snitch was at MCSO?

A. I specifically didn't talk to anyone.

Q. But you said you were aware that MCSO wanted to -- was concerned about who was leaking information to the press.

A. Everyone's aware of that; that's not a secret.

Q. Sir, when you spoke with Detective Tennyson, you actually said the sheriff wanted to find out who the snitch was, right?

A. That's what I said; that's not what I meant in the conversation. I was saying it globally.

Q. Just a moment ago you were talking about a leak. Do you recall that?

A. Yes. Yes, sir.

Q. And you said something to the effect that there was a [3750] concern that would affect a criminal investigation. Do you recall that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You've been a detective with Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for how long?

A. Fifteen years.

Q. And within those 15 years you've conducted criminal investigations, I'm sure.

A. Hundreds, if not thousands.

Q. Okay. Is there a concern when it comes to conducting criminal investigations to keep information confidential?

A. Of course.

Q. And why is that?

A. Because sometimes the law enforcement are the only ones that know certain answers to certain questions, and if that information leaks out, then potentially when you go to interview someone or you find evidence related to that crime, it's known to multiple people instead of just known to the investigators themselves.

Q. Okay. So would leaks to the media regarding a criminal investigation pose a problem?

A. Because if only certain people know certain information, and that leaks out and it's exposed, then other people could come forward with false statements, and that could definitely hamper the investigation.

Q. Also, in one of the exhibits that was admitted, I believe it's Exhibit 2938 --

MR. POPOLIZIO: Could we show that to the witness, Your Honor?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO: Q. There's a reference in this e-mail to opening a door to a federal judge.

A. Yes.

Q. What federal judge does that refer to?

A. Joyce -- Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C.

Q. And who is he?

A. He's a federal judge in the District Court of Washington, D.C.

Q. Okay. That didn't refer to Judge Snow?

A. No, it didn't.

Q. And did there come a time that there was a meeting with Judge Lamberth?

Q. And again, you saw another exhibit, I believe it was Exhibit 2920. It listed a lot of names. Do you recall that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay. And those names came from whom?

A. Is that the -- 2920. I just want to make sure I'm referencing the right document.

What happened early on in the investigation was Dennis Montgomery provided me with e-mails to corroborate his story, his history. And within those e-mails there were a lot of names. I have no idea who these people were. So I wanted to try to wrap my head around all the people that were -- he was discussing in his conversations with me.

Therefore, I went and made a list, I went by e-mail through e-mail, listed out all the people that I had never heard before so I could understand what each person was and what part they played in Dennis's history and his story, so to [3754] speak. So it was a combination of a lot of things.

Q. Did you provide any names on that list to Dennis Montgomery?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask Dennis Montgomery to investigate any of those people on the list?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Now, you said you've been with the Sheriff's Office for 15 years?

A. No, I've been with the Sheriff's Office almost 19 years. I've been a detective for 15 out of the 19.

Q. Okay. And you're a detective with the Sheriff's Office right now, correct?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Generally, just over the years, give me an overview, if you can, what types of investigations have you been involved in?

A. I've had a very unique career. I worked homicide for six years. I've worked special victims, which is sex crimes reference minors and adults. I worked criminal investigations reference employees. I've worked jail crimes reference any victims within the jail system. I've worked district detectives, which is pretty much a conglomerate of everything besides specialized crimes.

And for the last five years I've done -- I've been tasked with investigating mostly death threats for any judges [3755] in Maricopa County, Maricopa County employees, along with the Sheriff's Office employees.

Q. Aside from the Seattle investigation, have you ever been involved in investigations of computer crimes?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And could you tell me a little bit about that.

A. One of the things that I've been doing the last couple years is a lot of cases reference Craig's Lists, different e-mails, stuff like that, as far as a lot of we call it computer tampering cases, 'cause that's where it falls under Title 13 in Arizona state statutes.

Q. And did you conduct these types of investigations before November 2013?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. So there came a time that you became involved in what we've been referring to as the Seattle investigation?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. And around when did you become involved in the Seattle investigation?

A. Beginning of November of 2013.

Q. Because you were actually involved in the investigation, could you please tell me, what was the purpose of the Seattle investigation?

A. My purpose of the Seattle investigation was to validate Dennis Montgomery's claims that 150,000 residents within [3756] Maricopa County, and 400,000 residents within the state of Arizona, had their identities stolen. And that's the case that I was investigating. That's where the Sheriff's Office was looking into this case. (emphasis added)

Q. Okay. And when you say it was looking into this case, you're talking -- are you saying that that's what the investigation was in Seattle?

A. Yes, it was, sir.

Q. You said identity theft.

A. Correct.

Q. And is identity theft a crime?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And in this particular instance, was there a certain type of identity theft that you were looking into?

A. Dennis Montgomery's allegations were that people's identities were stolen, as in not as in their physical identity like a license, but personal information was stolen reference Social Security numbers, bank accounts, things like that.

Q. And these numbers that you just gave me, who provided you these numbers?

A. Dennis Montgomery provided us those numbers.

Q. So it was Dennis Montgomery provided you with a number of 150,000 people who had their identities stolen in Maricopa County?

A. I actually never physically saw a list of 150,000 people or [3757] the 400,000, but that's the numbers that Dennis Montgomery were -- was telling us, alleging to us.

Q. Did he tell you that verbally?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And could you tell me, do you know -- well, could you tell me, did Dennis Montgomery tell you how he came into possession of this information?

A. He stated that he used to be a contractor and did contract work for the CIA years ago. That's how he came in contact with this information.

Q. Did you ever actually determine how he came in contact with this information?

A. No, I was not able to.

Q. Now, how did you become connected with Dennis Montgomery?

A. Through Tim Blixseth.

Q. Who is he?

A. Tim Blixseth was the one that came forward. He had known Mike Zullo, and he wanted to discuss the information with Mike Zullo in the Sheriff's Office. So I was asked to sit in on a meeting to understand the allegations that Tim Blixseth was alleging.

Q. Now, when you worked with Mr. Zullo -- well, let's back up a little bit. How was Mr. Zullo involved in this? What position does he have?

A. Support. Support staff to me, basically.

Q. Is he a Posse member?

A. Yes, he is.

Q. Now, in terms of his working on this case, would he have to run things by you?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And why is that?

A. Because as a Posse member, he only gets his authority through me, basically per state statute, so I was not going to let a volunteer make decisions in reference to a criminal investigation that was ultimately going to fall on me.

Q. So I believe you stated that the Seattle investigation, the focus of that investigation was identity theft, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Were you in Seattle to investigate anything else?

A. No.

Q. Were you there to investigate Judge Snow?

A. No.

Q. Were you there to investigate Covington & Burling?

A. No.

Q. When you were up in Seattle conducting the investigation, did you even know who Covington & Burling was? [3762]

A. I didn't.

Q. Do you know now?

A. I do now. I found that out at the deposition.

Q. Okay. When you were up in Seattle conducting the investigation, did the investigation that you were conducting ever involve Eric Holder?

A. His name came up, but it never -- we never investigated Eric Holder. It was just another name that was thrown into the mix.

Q. How about Lanny Breuer?

A. Same thing.

Q. How about the Department of Justice?

A. Same thing.

Q. How about any conspiracies that could have been alleged between any of these individuals or entities?

A. All the conspiracy theories were Dennis Montgomery's theories; they weren't ours.

Q. Did you ever look into any of these conspiracy theories?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Did you investigate them?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever tell Dennis Montgomery to investigate any of these individuals or entities?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever receive an order from Chief Deputy Sheridan to [3763] investigate Judge Snow?

A. Quite the con -- quite the contrary.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. On several different occasions Chief Sheridan said absolutely not under any circumstances were we to investigate Judge Snow.

Q. He told you that on more than one occasion?

A. Multiple. More than one occasion, correct.

Q. More than two occasions?

A. Correct.

Q. More than three?

A. I remember at least three times.

Q. Anybody else give you that type of an order?

A. No one else needed to. It came -- as far as I was concerned, that was straight from the top, 'cause that was Chief Jerry Sheridan.

Q. Did you ever receive an order from Sheriff Arpaio not to investigate Judge Snow?

A. I don't remember him ever saying that, but obviously, if Jerry Sheridan said that we were not investigating the judge, then we weren't investigating the judge.

Q. Did you ever receive an order from Chief Deputy Sheridan to investigate Covington & Burling?

A. The first time it would apply to myself and Mike Zullo, 'cause Travis Anglin wasn't involved in the case at that time. And I don't know exactly what orders Travis got, because I can't speak for that, but Mike Zullo was also present for at least one of the conversations that Judge Snow was not to be investigated.

Q. And when you say "one of the conversations," conversations that involved who?

A. Chief Deputy Sheridan, myself, and Mike Zullo.

Q. So when you received the order not to investigate Judge Snow, Mike Zullo was also present?

A. For at least one of the conversations I recall, correct.

Q. Did you understand that order to apply to both of you?

A. Absolutely.

MS. MORIN: Objection, foundation.

MR. POPOLIZIO: I asked if he understood.

THE COURT: He asked for his understanding, so I'll allow it.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO: Q. When you were up in Seattle conducting your investigation of identity theft, did you investigate the birth certificate? [3766]

A. I did not, no.

Q. Okay. That wasn't a part of your investigation?

A. That was another order that came from Chief Jerry Sheridan, that Travis and I were to have nothing to do with the birth certificate.

Q. Now, we had a little discussion about this before about putting the judge's name into a database. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay. Now, during this investigation were there times that Dennis Montgomery gave you demonstrations?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what types of demonstrations did Dennis Montgomery do while you were out there? What did he show you?

A. He would put a name in his database and we'd see if it was in there.

Q. And did he tell you what the purpose of plugging a name into the database, see if it was in there, was?

A. His explanation was is that he had one master database which was searchable, basically, but if you put a person in that database, it would give very limited information.

Prime example. Stacy Sheridan, Chief Sheridan's wife, was in the database. It had her name, had an old business address, and had an old telephone number from, like, 10 years ago. I had no idea if that information was correct or not. [3767]

And basically, what it would state is what was collected: bank information, phone records, or financial information. But to actually access anything further, that would have to be done on a totally separate computer system, hence, the reason why it would take so long.

That's why this process, this investigation, took so long, because it was very difficult for him, that's what he told us, to put the information back together. If that makes sense.

Q. And when you say "him," who are you referring to?

A. Dennis Montgomery.

Q. And what you just explained to me, that information, who was the source of that information?

A. Dennis Montgomery.

Q. So when you were up there and Mr. Montgomery would perform this demonstration plugging in names, Judge Snow wasn't the only name that was plugged in, was he?

A. It was just someone that I knew, and wondered -- figured, let's see if they're in there. Mike Zullo was actually in there. I didn't even know this about Mike, but he used to own a -- some kind of CI company 10, 15 years ago, and it was under the CI company that his name fell under, which I didn't even know about Mike Zullo.

Q. So who elected to put Mr. Zullo's name in there?

A. Mike.

Q. Is there anybody else you can recall putting in?

A. I can't recall, no.

Q. But there was a time when Judge Snow's name was entered.

A. The last name of Snow, the summary of Snow was entered.

Q. How did that come up?

A. We were in the office, and like I said before in my deposition, the Melendres matter didn't really affect me. I never -- I was never in a position within the office that it affected my day-to-day operations. So I wasn't really up to date and really didn't understand what this Melendres thing was all about.

I had known that we were in a lawsuit. That's all I knew at that point. Dennis Montgomery actually knew more about the dealings of the DOJ and the lawsuit than I did. What had happened was is we were in the garage, and Mike Zullo -- the biggest problem we were trying to do was to corroborate anything Dennis Montgomery stated he had, because he had [3769] credibility issues.

So Mike Zullo said: Hey, you know what? What's the judge's name that's in the lawsuit? And I remember Dennis Montgomery getting on the Internet and searching that. And actually, I believe Judge Silver came up in an article. And I remember I did know very little that DO -- that I believe Judge Silver was the judge overseeing the DOJ matter, I believe, and I said: That name doesn't -- I know Judge Silver, and that's not the judge that's over the Melendres issue.

So he did another search, and the last name of Snow, I don't know how it came up, Murray Snow, G. Murray Snow, I'm not really sure. So then he put the surname of Snow in his database and several Snows came up. I don't know if any of the Snows were actually "the" Judge Snow. That's as far as it went, as far as I was concerned.

Q. Did you report to the chief deputy that this type of search was done?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. And did you report to him that there was a plugging in of Judge Snow's name into a computer?

A. Yes.

Q. What was his reaction?

A. Like I already said: Absolutely under no circumstances is the judge to be investigated.

A. Tim Blixseth is someone that lives in Bellevue, Washington, not too far away from Dennis Montgomery. Somehow, they became friends, and that's how the information came to us.

Q. Do you know anything else about Mr. Blixseth, what he does for a living?

A. Well, I know what he used to do. He was in the timber business, and he was actually one of the top hundred richest people in the United States. He was worth two and a half billion dollars at one point before his divorce. It was through the divorce he lost more than half his assets.

Q. And he also is from Washington, is that right?

A. Yes, he is.

Q. Okay. Let's go back to the -- this identity theft investigation involving Maricopa County citizens.

Did Mr. Montgomery provide you some names of individuals in Maricopa County who he claimed were victims of identity fraud?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And then once he did that, did you try to do anything to verify the information that he provided you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. What did you do?

A. He gave us a PDF file containing a couple thousand people, I believe. I basically did a cross-section of 40 people that [3772] were contained within that file. I tried to pick people across the board: different people, different towns, different addresses, all within Maricopa County.

And what I did is made up packets that were given to detectives, and they were to go out and ask these specific people certain questions in reference to the information that was contained on the spreadsheet.

Q. When you said -- so you selected names from a larger list of names?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And how did you go about the selection?

A. It was random. I knew that we couldn't do thousands that were on there, it would just be too time intensive, so we tried to just do just a cross-section of what was contained in that document.

Q. Okay. And then after you identified these 40 individuals, what did you then do?

A. It took approximately a month to basically get packets on everyone, because a lot of this information was old so that their addresses had changed, they moved. So we had to put packets together as far as how to contact these people, and then detectives were sent out to conduct interviews with those people to see if any of the information on the spreadsheet was correct.

Q. Do you know how many detectives were involved in this part [3773] of the investigation?

A. I do not. I was not part of that.

Q. Do you know if individuals were actually contacted?

A. I know of at least 40, I believe.

Q. Were actually contacted?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And were they contacted by detectives?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. And during -- and then do you know if the detectives interviewed those people?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. Was the interview process with respect to these 40 people, was it discussed ahead of time?

A. Yes, it was. I was actually the one that made the questions that needed to be asked, because I was the one that knew everything about the investigation.

Q. Okay. So did you provide something to the deputies to use?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you provide?

A. It was basically a Word document with, like, 10 questions that I needed answered to move forward.

Q. Do you recall what types of questions were asked?

A. I don't, sir.

Q. Do you recall if the questions had to do with theft of bank accounts? [3774]

A. Yes, they pertained to the investigation.

Q. Could you describe generally what you were looking to find out from these people?

A. I was trying to corroborate the information that Dennis Montgomery provided us. And if these people could corroborate any of the information that were contained in these documents, then that would lend some credibility to Dennis Montgomery.

Q. Did any of these interviews result in confirming information that Mr. Montgomery said he had?

A. I believe so.

Q. Okay. Explain that to me.

A. Not exactly. Generalized information was confirmed.

Q. Like what?

A. Old addresses, old telephone numbers, old e-mail addresses, things like that. There was a money -- there was a dollar amount figure included in the spreadsheet, and I don't believe any one victim came out and exactly said, That's exactly what was in my account on this date at this time, because obviously, they couldn't do that.

But some stated, Yeah, that would make sense; no, that wouldn't make any sense at all. So we moved forward.

Q. But did some of the identity theft victims identify that, yes, that was their bank account?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, with the selection of the 40 people randomly, let's go [3775] back to when you plug some names into -- well, not you, Mr. Montgomery, plugged some names into the computer up in Washington.

Were any of the people whose names were plugged into the computer put on this list of 40?

A. I wouldn't know that, no.

Q. Well, was Stacy Sheridan's name on that?

A. I never looked --

Q. No, I'm talking about on the list of 40 people that you randomly selected.

A. No, not at all.

Q. Okay. Was Mr. Zullo's name put on that list of 40?

A. No.

Q. Was Judge Snow's put on that list of 40?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. I didn't even look to see -- their names were in that PDF sheet. I literally took page by page and just highlighted one, highlighted another one. I wanted to get a good cross-section of what this document contained.

Q. When you looked at information on computer screens that Dennis Montgomery had in Washington, and he showed you Judge Snow's name, or a Snow name on the computer, did you ever look to see whether Judge Snow's name was on the list of people whose bank accounts were compromised? [3776]

A. No.

Q. Did you ever look into Judge Snow's bank account information?

A. No.

Q. How come?

A. I didn't get that information till June of 2014, and I was given a direct order from Jerry Sheridan back in November that Judge Snow was not to be investigated.

Q. Did you ever specifically tell Dennis Montgomery not to look into Judge Snow?

A. No.

Q. Did you think you needed to?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Dennis Montgomery, I think, always was under the impression that that was important to us, but we had never actually told Dennis Montgomery that under no circumstances were we going to investigate any of the information that he gave us.

Q. At times, Mr. Montgomery would provide you with information?

A. Yes.

Q. Would he ever provide you with information that was irrelevant to the purpose of the Seattle investigation?

Q. Aside from verifying that those numbers were actually the numbers of Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan, did you do anything else to investigate the wiretapping claims that Mr. Montgomery presented?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you speak to the chief deputy about these wiretap claims?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you speak to the sheriff?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was it together or separately?

A. Could have been together, could have been separate, I'm not really too sure.

Q. Do you remember what Chief Deputy Sheridan's reaction was when you told him about that, the wiretap? Alleged wiretap.

A. I believe at first he just dismissed it, and then at a second look I think he became a little concerned that, Oh, my God, what if this information is really true and accurate? What's really going on here?

Q. How about the sheriff? How did he react?

A. Pretty much the same way.

Q. During the course of this investigation were you ever concerned that Judge Snow was wiretapping the chief deputy?

Q. Did anybody at MCSO express concern to you that Judge Snow may be wiretapping the chief deputy or the sheriff?

A. No.

Q. So how did this whole issue of wiretapping come up in the first place?

A. Something that Dennis Montgomery fed us.

Q. Did you ask him to look into wiretapping?

A. No.

Q. I just want to get a picture of Seattle. Well, strike that. Let's go back to the wiretap for a second before we get off that. Was there ever any investigation conducted in Seattle to determine whether Judge Snow authorized any wiretaps?

A. No.

Q. You said earlier in your testimony that there are some credibility issues with Mr. Montgomery?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Mr. Montgomery was a confidential informant?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. In your career, before you had worked with Mr. Montgomery, had you worked with confidential informants?

Q. In your experience, have you found that confidential informant have credibility issues?

A. They all have credibility issues.

Q. Explain that to me.

A. It's the whole reason why they're a confidential informant.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. You don't become a confidential informant because you always tell the truth. I mean, confidential informants usually throw in a little bit of truth with a whole bunch of lies, and it's our job to decipher what's what.

Q. So do you remember what Mr. Montgomery's credibility issues were?

A. Well, they were well known. They were published. We had known what the credibility issues were when we went into it.

Q. Did you discuss these credibility issues with Mr. Montgomery?

A. Several occasions.

Q. Okay. How about with the chief deputy?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. With Sheriff Arpaio?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. But you continued -- well, you went into an investigation with Mr. Montgomery.

Q. I mean, you're working with a confidential informant here, Mr. Montgomery. Was that odd to you?

A. No, because when pressed, Dennis Montgomery provided us information that would explain the credibility -- the credibility issues that was brought forward.

Q. Okay. And there came a time when there was a meeting at the AG's office --

A. Correct.

Q. -- is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that meeting, the purpose of that meeting was what?

A. It was basically to give Dennis Montgomery the ability to tell the attorney from the state's attorney's office what information he had and tell his story. And if he provided all the documents that he stated that he was going to provide to further our investigation, then the Attorney General's Office would, I don't want to say give him immunity, but anything that was said under the free talk agreement would not be used against him later on.

Q. Okay. In your experience as a detective with Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, had you ever gone to a free talk before this?

Q. And was it -- is it fair to say that people engage in a free talk to see if they can get immunity from prosecution?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Is it your call if the individual get immunity?

A. Has nothing to do with us.

Q. Who makes that call?

A. It's the attorney general, or the county attorney, or whatever office is overseeing the free talk agreement in the first place.

Q. And at this meeting at the Attorney General's Office, were Mr. Montgomery's credibility issues again addressed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And how did that come about?

A. We brought it out.

Q. Who brought it out?

A. I did. I was pretty much the one questioning Dennis Montgomery to get him to answer questions and speak, and I'm the one that brought up the credibility issues that he had.

Q. Do you recall who was present from the Attorney General's Office, representing the Attorney General's Office, at this meeting?

A. I believe his last name was Waters; I don't know his first name.

Q. During this meeting at the Attorney General's Office did Judge Snow's name ever come up? [3783]

A. No.

Q. Was this case, the Melendres case, ever discussed?

A. No.

Q. Now, I think when I interrupted myself and went back to another -- another issue, I forgot that I was going to ask you about something else.

Could you just tell me, when you were up in Seattle and this computer work was occurring through Mr. Montgomery, could you just kind of describe, if you can paint a picture for us, what kind of setup computer-wise Mr. Montgomery had?

A. He had several computers in his office, which was located inside of his home. Then outside he had, I believe it would have been a four-car garage, and half of the four-car garage consisted of pretty much a computer system, disk arrays, I think probably about 70 or 80 disk -- or 70 or 80 hard drives could be online at one time. It was a pretty elaborate setup, as far as I was concerned.

[3784]Q. Detective Mackiewicz, you testified during defense counsel's questioning about Sheriff Arpaio's role in the investigation and said something to the effect that the sheriff didn't run the day-to-day operations, right?

A. Correct.

Q. But you are aware that Mr. Zullo had conversations with Sheriff Arpaio that you were not a part of, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you are not claiming to be aware of everything that Sheriff Arpaio and Mr. Zullo were doing in relation to the investigation, right?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. I think you told us that Mike Zullo actually talked with Sheriff Arpaio more often than you did, right?

A. He did.

Q. * * * You testified with respect to looking at the different versions of the name Snow in Dennis Montgomery's database, right? Do you remember that? [3785]

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And I think you said something to the effect that you didn't know if any of those versions of the name Snow were actually "the" Judge Snow, right?

A. Correct.

Q. But you also testified at your deposition that you actually believed one of -- one of those iterations of the name Snow was actually "the" Judge Snow from this litigation, right?

A. It could have been.

Q. Do you recall that?

A. I do recall that. It could have been. We never investigated it any further to make -- to see if it was "the" Judge Snow.

Q. In fact, you told me at your deposition that not only that it could have been, but that you thought you were looking at, among those names Snow, you thought you were looking at one of them being Judge Snow's name, right?

A. It could be Judge Snow's name. We never took it any further, so I can't tell you if it exactly was Judge Snow or not.

Q. Well, let's take a look at your deposition, sir, at page 42, line 45, through page 43, line 2. And if we could play clip 72, please.

Q. -- on occasion I ask a few questions as well after all the parties have had a chance; I'm going to do that with you.

A. No problem, sir.

Q. I don't think I have many questions, but I do have a few, and what I want to talk to you about are the trips that you mentioned to see a federal judge in Washington, D.C.

A. Okay, sir.

Q. You mentioned several such trips. How many were there? Well, I think you mentioned -- tell me if I'm wrong -- [3787] I think you mentioned several such trips, several such meetings, with several different individuals being involved in each meeting, was that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Can you tell me, to the best of your recollection, when your first meeting was with the federal judge in Washington, D.C.?

A. I believe it was the end of August, beginning of September.

Q. And this would be end of August 2014?

A. '14, correct, sir. Correct, '14.

Q. And who was at that meeting, to the best of your recollection?

A. The first meeting would have been Larry Klayman, his assistant, Dina James, I believe -- her name came up earlier -- Mike Zullo, and myself.

Q. But Mr. Montgomery was not present at that meeting?

A. No, he was not.

Q. And what was discussed at that meeting?

A. Basically, Larry Klayman was trying to ask Judge Lamberth different questions on how he could get his client some kind of federal immunity for the claims that Dennis Montgomery was making as far as all his -- all the times he went to make the whistle-blower complaints to all the different agencies, and no one was taking a look at them, basically.

A. The first meeting wasn't very long. A subsequent meeting, we went back and Dennis Montgomery actually was on the second meeting with -- with Judge Lambert.

Q. All right. Before we move to that second meeting, is there anything else you remember at all about the first meeting?

A. Not really. I mean, it was -- it wasn't very long. It was a very short meeting.

Q. All right. So at least as of the end of October -- well, you said the end of August, beginning of September 2014, you still thought there might be some credibility to what Mr. Montgomery was telling you.

A. Judge, I still think to this day that there's a little bit of credibility somewhere of what Dennis Montgomery was saying. To which parts, I can't tell you.

Q. Okay. Do you remember anything else about that meeting?

A. No, it was pretty short. It wasn't not eventful.

Q. Where did it occur?

A. In his chambers.

Q. All right. And it was set up, I think you testified, by Mr. Klayman?

Q. Do you know at this time whether Mr. Klayman was also representing Sheriff Arpaio?

A. I have no idea if Larry Klayman represents the sheriff or not. I'm not aware of that.

Q. You've never been aware of whether or not --

A. No.

Q. -- Mr. Klayman represents Sheriff Arpaio?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Okay. When was the next meeting between -- or that you attended that involved Judge Lamberth?

A. I believe two weeks later, approximately two weeks.

Q. And Dennis Montgomery was at that meeting?

A. Correct.

Q. Who else was at that meeting?

A. It was myself and Mike, Dina James, Larry Klayman, the judge, Dennis Montgomery, and Dennis Montgomery's son-in-law. Because by that time, Dennis Montgomery had already suffered a stroke, and he needed someone there to help him around.

Q. All right. And what was the topic of discussion at that meeting?

A. Basically, at that meeting Dennis Montgomery laid out his history, laid out his story. The story was pretty much exactly the same that he told me on our first interview back in November, and then the free talk agreement that he did in December, and he pretty much went through his history and told [3790] the judge his history, and why he wanted to get some kind of federal immunity for all the whistle-blower stuff that he was trying to put forward.

Q. And what else can you recall about that meeting? Can you recall anything that anybody else said?

A. No, it was -- it was probably a two-hour meeting. It was -- Dennis Montgomery went on and discussed a lot of things with -- with the judge, and basically the judge was -- played very neutral. Didn't really say one thing one way or the other.

Q. Did Mr. Montgomery attend any other meetings with the judge?

A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. Did you attend any other meetings with the judge?

A. Yes, one more meeting.

Q. And when was that?

A. Probably about two weeks after that.

Q. And who was at that meeting?

A. I don't remember who exactly was at the meeting, but I know Dennis Montgomery was not. I believe it was Mike, myself, and Larry, and probably Dina James again, because they were always together.

Q. And was that meeting after or before you began sending these e-mails in which you were seriously questioning the credibility of Mr. Montgomery to Mr. Klayman? [3791]

A. Before.

Q. All right. And what happened at that meeting?

A. Larry Klayman was asking the judge basically what he thought our options were, and basically the judge was honest. He said: You know what? The way I see it, you have three options: Either you go to the FBI and ask for some kind of immunity; you go to the CIA; or you wait and see if you can get in front of, like, the Senate Intelligence Committee.

This was around the same time I think -- I believe 2014 was a voting year, so they were trying to figure out who was going to be in office, and that's the last meeting I was present for with the judge.

Q. In one of the e-mails that we've just admitted into evidence you express some concern about false statements made to a federal judge that needed to be corrected by Mr. Montgomery. I assume that that was in, then, the second meeting that he made false statements that you thought needed to be corrected?

A. Correct. Basically, at that point I was not -- I didn't want the Sheriff's Office, nor the sheriff or myself, anyone from the Sheriff's Office, look like we went ahead and validated Dennis Montgomery on any level, because that was not the truth. And we didn't want Judge Lambert to think that we were validating anything that Dennis Montgomery stated, because [3792] I didn't want to put the Sheriff's Office in that predicament.

Q. I get you. But what were the statements that Mr. Montgomery made that you thought he needed to correct?

A. Do you know what? It was more of a general statement based on the information that he never provided us, because he -- the whole problem with this case was Dennis never provided what he agreed to provide in the free talk agreement.

So still, up until this point, he was making the same statements and same allegations, and at this point I was basically -- I was frustrated that they had gone on this long, and that we -- that he never provided what he said he was going to provide. So that was -- that's what I meant by that statement in the e-mail.

Q. Did you ever -- did you report these meetings to Sheriff Arpaio?

A. I believe Sheriff Arpaio knew that we were going to Washington, D.C., and meeting with a judge, but I don't -- I can't specifically say if he knew about -- I never told him the exact details of what was transpiring or what was going on.

Q. Did you ever report to Chief Deputy Sheridan about these meetings?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you report to him after each of these meetings?

A. I believe so.

Q. To your knowledge, did either Chief Deputy Sheridan or [3793] Sheriff Arpaio have any discussions with Judge Lamberth outside of what they would have heard from what you told them about those meetings?

A. I can tell you that I had a conversation with Chief Jerry Sheridan, and I actually wanted him to meet the judge, and he said absolutely not. He did not want to insert himself in that way at all.

Q. So to your knowledge, Chief Deputy Sheridan never met or had any communications with the judge?

A. Not to my knowledge, correct.

Q. And the only knowledge that he would have concerning what the judge said would be knowledge that you would have given him.

A. Correct.

Q. Or that Mr. Zullo might have given him.

A. Correct, sir.

Q. But there wasn't anybody affiliated with the MCSO other than you and Mr. Zullo in those meetings.

A. Correct.

Q. And I suppose Mr. Klayman, to the extent he might have had separate discussions with Sheriff Arpaio?

A. Could have, I don't know.

Q. Did you ever discuss with Judge Lamberth or did Judge Lamberth ever discuss his term as being on the FISA Court during any of those meetings? [3794]

A. He did not. I knew, basically because I researched who he was, 'cause I was kind of curious to see who we were meeting, that he had a stint in the FISA Court. And to be honest, I didn't even understand what that really meant until I looked it up.

Q. So what does a FISA court mean?

A. It's something ser -- it's a federal surveillance, something; I don't even know what it really stands for. I know the concept of it, but I don't know exactly what it stands for. But he didn't get into his past history with us. I don't know, it wasn't an issue, so to speak.

Q. Did he ever con -- did you ever show him the wiretap numbers, or did -- not you. Did Mr. Montgomery ever show him the wiretap numbers that he attributed to this Court?

A. Yes.

Q. And what --

A. I'm sorry, Judge. I don't want to say "attributed to this Court," because I don't think that's a correct statement.

Q. All right. Well, correct me.

A. No, no, no. I don't mean to correct you.

Q. What wiretap numbers were shown to Judge Lamberth?

A. Whatever, the ones that were on the sheet.

Q. Okay. When you say "the sheet," you're talking about that schematic sheet that's been introduced into evidence that Mr. Montgomery provided you? [3795]

A. Correct.

Q. And what did Judge Lamberth say about those numbers?

A. He didn't say anything. He just looked at them and gave Dennis the piece of paper back, that was it.

Q. And so if Chief Deputy Sheridan was under the impression, and testified in this court, that Judge Lamberth confirmed that those were wire -- those were similar to wiretap numbers used by the court, that wouldn't have been information he received from you?

A. You know, I could understand if --

Q. I'm just asking you to answer yes or no. Did you have any discussion with Chief Deputy Sheridan in which you indicated to him that Judge Lamberth confirmed that those were wire -- those were similar to wiretap numbers that were commonly used?

A. I don't believe that my words were "confirmed" that they were wiretap numbers, but therefore, they weren't dismissed, either. The conversation that I would have had with Chief Sheridan, I would have never said he absolutely confirmed that those were wiretap numbers, because Judge Lamberth never said that.

Q. Well, what did Judge Lamberth say and what did you ask Judge Lamberth?

A. Like I said, he didn't really say anything. He looked at the numbers, kind of, Oh, that's kind of interesting, and then gave the sheet back. He didn't really go into it, inquire. [3796] Again, I wasn't in a position to ask him: Are those real wiretap numbers? I didn't -- I didn't know what they meant.

Q. And this discussion occurred in that second conversation you had with Chief Lamberth -- or with Judge Lamberth?

A. Second, correct.

Q. And that was about middle of September of 2014?

A. Correct.

Q. And at that time you were still discussing the wiretap numbers with Chief Deputy Sheridan.

A. It was something that they were interested in to see if exactly that was true or not true.

Q. And you knew that at least Mr. Montgomery's sheet that you'd seen attributed me as being one who ordered one of those wiretaps.

A. You know what? To be honest, Judge, I didn't even -- if that's what it says, I never even looked at it. A lot of this information, as soon as I received it, I didn't even look at it.

Q. How long have you known Mike Bailey?

A. Mike Bailey?

Q. Well, Captain Bailey. I may have his name wrong. I apologize. Do you know who I'm talking about when I say --